Barriers that hamper sustainable food buying behaviour

Research question three is analysed in order to reveal the barriers hampering sustainable food consumption in Germany. With the help of ANOVA-Tables mean value comparisons are used to show the differences between the three consumer groups.

The identification of food products that have been produced according to the 4D and the knowledge where to buy such food were analysed at first. The overall results are displayed in Table 1 and 2.

Respondents seem to have difficulties in identifying sustainable food which is especially true for environmental and climate friendly produced food. Also, when looking at the knowledge where to buy sustainable food, they seem to have bigger difficulties to find food that has been produced according to these ecological aspects.

The group of “Sustainable Food Consumers” has fewer problems with the two tested barriers, while in the other two groups the barriers augment.

Table 1: Identification and Availability Barrier

E FT AW C

Significance of mean value differences Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000

Sustainable Food Consumers MV 1,12 1,19 1,23 0,92

Sig. = Significance; MV=mean value; SD=standard deviation

Scale: -2=does not apply at all; -1=does not apply; 0=party; 1=applies; 2=fully applies Source: Own data, 2012

Apart from the barriers that were tested for all 4D, there were four more general barriers tested (Table 2). The results again display that there are significant differences between the three consumer groups.

The “Sustainable Food Consumers” do not perceive any of the tested barriers as such, while for the “Indifferents” and “Conventional Food Consumers” price constitutes a clear barrier for sustainable food purchases. Apart from this, the low mean values of the barriers concerning the lack of trust in the certification of such products and the difficulty to change fixed routines hint at important additional reasons why these two consumer groups do not buy sustainable food products frequently.

Table 2: Availability Barrier Significance of mean value differences Sig. .000 .000 .005 .015 Sustainable Food Consumers MV -0,08 -0,92 -0,08 -0,58

Sig. = Significance; MV=mean value; SD=standard deviation

Scale: -2=does not apply at all; -1=does not apply; 0=party; 1=applies; 2=fully applies Source: Own data, 2012

5. Discussion

The market for sustainable food in Germany is still a niche market, but steadily growing. Many consumers care about the sustainability of food products, although this positive attitude is not always translated into purchasing behavior. There is a big group of consumers that believes in the importance of all 4D (45%), but only occasionally buys such products. This group should be the target group for a more effective marketing of such food. Consumers still have difficulties to identify and know where to purchase sustainable products, although there are well known labels such as Fair Trade.

Specifically, respondents had clear difficulties identifying environmental friendly food,

which might be due to the fact that occasional consumers tend to not exclusively associate organic products with environmental but more with health aspects (Wier et al., 2008, 412). Animal Welfare is the dimension most consumers care about and thus would be a good topic for supply chain actors to focus on when they want to profit from the possibilities of the sustainable food market. Climate friendly food production however does not seem to get much attention from consumers. The perception that the price for sustainable food is too high is a major barrier for consumers even if they have positive attitudes towards sustainability.

For policy as well as marketing actors, the results of this study hint at the importance of better communicating the additional qualities of sustainable food in the future. If the niche market is supposed to be mainstreamed, information about sustainable products, as well as the products themselves, needs to be made easily available and comprehensive i.e. via labels. Moreover, it is crucial to educate and motivate consumers that their consumption impacts the overall sustainability the premium price is justified.

References

Adams, M. and Raisborough, J. (2010): Making a difference: ethical consumption and the every day. The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 256-274.

Aertsens, J.; Verbeke, W.; Mondelaers, K.. and van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009): Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review. British Food Journal, 111, 1140-1167.

Ajzen, I. (1985): From intentions to actions. A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhi and J. Beckmann (Hrsg.): Action-control: From cognition to behaviour.

Heidelberg: Springer, 11-39.

Ajzen, I. (1991): The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Böhm, J.; Kayser, M. and Spiller, A. (2010): Two Sides of the Same Coin? – Analysis of the Web-Based Social Media with Regard to the Image of the Agri-Food Sector in Germany. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 1, 264-278.

BöLW (Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft e. V. (2012): Zahlen, Daten, Fakten:

Die Bio-Branche 2012. Berlin.

Caswell, J.A. and Padberg, D.I. (1992): Toward a More Comprehensive Theory of Food Labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 460-468.

Eberle, U.; Spiller, A.; Becker, T.; Heißenhuber, A.; Leonhäuser, I.-U. und Sundrum, A.

(2011): Politikstrategie Food Labelling. Gemeinsame Stellungnahme der Wissenschaftlichen Beiräte für Verbraucher- und Ernährungspolitik und Agrarpolitik beim BMELV. Berlin.

European Commission and European Parliament (2009): Flash Eurobarometer:

Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production.

European Commission and European Parliament (2008): Special Eurobarometer 300:

Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change.

Fair Trade Deutschland (2013): Absatz Fairtrade-Produkte im Einzelnen. URL:

http://www.fairtrade-deutschland.de/produkte/absatz-fairtrade-produkte/

(10.01.2013).

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975): Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Franz, A.; von Meyer, M. und Spiller, A. (2010): Diffusionsstrategien für Nachhaltigkeitslabel. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, 4, 417–443.

Grolleau, C. and Caswell, J.A. (2006): Interaction Between Food Attributes in Markets:

The Case of Environmental Labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31, 471-484.

Grunert, K.G. (2011): Sustainability in the food sector: a consumer behavior perspective. International Journal of Food System Dynamics, 2, 207-218.

Henseleit, M. (2012): Die Nachfrage nach Fair-Trade Produkten in Deutschland – eine empirische Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung von Präferenzen für Bio-Produkte. Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Ladbaus e.V., 47, 137-149.

Honkanen, P.; Verplanken, B. and Olsen, S. O. (2006): Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 420-430.

Honkanen, P. and Olsen, S.O. (2009): Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice: the case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111, 293-309.

Jahn, G.; Schramm, M. and Spiller, A. (2005): The reliability of certification: Quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 53-73.

Kayser, M.; Schlieker, K. und Spiller, A. (2012): Die Wahrnehmung des Begriffs

„Massentierhaltung“ aus Sicht der Gesellschaft. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 90, 417-428.

Lagerkvist, C.J. and Hess, S. (2011): A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38, 55-78.

Loureiro, M.L.; McCluskey, J.J. and Mittelhammer, R.C. (2001): Assessing Consumer Preferences for Organic, Eco-labeled, and Regular Apples. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26, 404-416.

Mc Cluskey, J.J.; Durham, C.A. and Horn, B.P. (2009): Consumer Preferences for Socially Responsible Production Attributes Across Food Products. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 38, 345–356.

v. Meyer-Höfer, M. und Spiller, A. (2013): Anforderungen an eine nachhaltige Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft: Die Rolle des Konsumenten. KTBL-Schrift, 500, 1-9.

Reisch, Lucia (2011): A Definition of Sustainable Food Consumption. URL:

http://www.scp-knowledge.eu/knowledge/definition-%E2% 80%9 C sustainable-food-consumption %E2%80%9D. (23.07.2013).

Roberst, J.A. (1996): Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217 – 231.

Schulze, B.; Lemke, D. und Spiller, A. (2008): Glücksschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung. In: Spiller, A. und Schulze, B. (Hrsg.): Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft – Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen. Göttingen. Universitäts-Verlag Göttingen, 465-488.

Verain, M.C.D.; Bartles, J.; Dagevos, H.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M. and Antondies, G. (2012): Segments of sustainable food consumers: a literature review.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 123-132.

Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006): Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude-bahavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169-194.

Wier, M.; O'Doherty Jensen, K.; Andersen, L.M.; Millock, K. and Rosenkvist, L.

(2008): The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy, 55, 406-421.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) (2012): Klimawandel auf dem Teller. Berlin.